The Persistent Myth That Trump Opposes War

Whenever I criticize the foreign policy of the current US administration, I always get some pushback from Trump supporters who insist that this president is doing more good than harm by “fighting the Deep State” and, even more commonly, by “keeping us out of wars”.

This notion that Donald Trump is some kind of peace president, or even the notion that he puts any more inertia on the US war machine than his predecessor did, is contradicted by all facts and evidence we have available to us. Trump has not ended a single one of the wars his predecessors started, and has added dangerous escalations against Venezuela, Iran, and nuclear-armed Russia.

One of the difficulties in addressing this persistent myth, besides the obvious fact that everyone now lives in tightly cloistered information echo chambers of confirmation bias-feeding validation loops, is that the myth is in some ways bipartisan. Whenever Trump mumbles one of his empty appeals to non-interventionist principles, his supporters lap it up while half of the Democrats start attacking the president for being insufficiently hawkish. Trump’s talk about withdrawing from Syria is a perfect example of this; the troops are still there, but Dems attacked him for irresponsible “isolationist” behavior and his supporters got their fairy tale about their president ending wars. Everyone gets what they want, including the military-industrial complex that Trump pretends to oppose.

4 months since the last piece of ISIS-held territory was liberated, there are still nearly 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria; the main American base is in northern Syria, where a strip long enough to handle jet transports has been carved out of the Syrian plain https://t.co/qxGcJT6F2Cpic.twitter.com/XpRrGPwSmg

But the fact that liberal hawks attack Trump for not being as warlike as he could possibly be in every possible area doesn’t make him a peace president, any more than neocons attacking Obama for the same reason made him a peace president. Right-wing hawks viciously attacked Obama for refusing to arm Ukraine against Russia and for refusing to attack Damascus over the chemical weapons “red line” (both of which are neoconservative agendas that Trump has fully fallen in line with, by the way), but that doesn’t negate Obama’s depraved acts of interventionism in Libya, Syria and elsewhere. Both Trump and Obama have at times refused to go quite as far as the most virulent warmongers wanted them to, but that doesn’t mean either oppose war.

If you want a fair, accurate and nonpartisan insight into how much of a war whore the sitting president is, click this hyperlink to get to a list by the antiwar organization St Pete for Peace titled “Trump Foreign Policy Fact Sheet–An up-to-date chronology of the good and the bad of the Trump administration’s foreign policy – from an antiwar perspective”. The fact sheet takes news reports about this administration’s foreign policy statements and decisions and files them under ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ columns. There are some things in the ‘Good’ column, like Trump’s meetings with Kim Jong-un and his refusal to strike Iran for downing a US drone, but just scroll down and see for yourself how much longer the ‘Bad’ column is than the ‘Good’.

This to me is by itself a pretty solid refutation of the notion that this president is anyone who can be supported on antiwar grounds. Whenever a Trump supporter argues against my criticisms of this administration, their arguments always come from the ‘Good’ column while completely ignoring the ‘Bad’. This is only possible because of the echo chamber dynamic which allows political partisans to absorb positive news about their favorite political faction without hearing about any of the negatives; the echo chamber walls are so thick that when I tell Trump supporters about the warmongering behaviors of their president I am often accused of lying until I provide them with proof of my claims. Even then they still sometimes find a way to compartmentalize and act like they didn’t just view a complete and total refutation of their position.

The other argument I get from those who wish to defend Trump on antiwar grounds is that Hillary Clinton would have been a worse warmonger, and had she been elected we could have seen World War Three ignited by her insanely hawkish plans for Syria. I actually agree on both counts, but that doesn’t mean this is a legitimate argument to make. Hillary Clinton being bad doesn’t make Trump good, any more than the existence of cancer makes it good to have congestive heart failure. Trump is the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force of all time, and the behavior of that military force is what we’re talking about right now. Babbling about some alternate President Hillary timeline is a red herring.

"Sanctions are the only form of warfare where it’s considered perfectly acceptable and legitimate to deliberately target a nation’s civilian population with lethal force." #Venezuala#MAGAhttps://t.co/LTKZnFNgSr

You get the picture. There is no legitimate reason for any thinking person to go on believing that this president is any less of a warmonger than Obama. If we’re lucky he’ll leave office with a lower body count than George W Bush. The narrative that things have changed serves no one but the powerful, and it guarantees that those who believe it will cease fighting for real change. It would be great if Americans could put someone in charge of their military who actually opposes war. To believe that that has already happened is reckless and delusional.

Share

Latest comments

Richard Wicks/September 5, 2019

By this time into their administration both Obama and George W. Bush had started a new war. With Obama, it was the bombing of Libya, with Bush, of course Iraq and Afghanistan.

When is the last time Afghanistan or Syria was bombed?

Why isn’t the US as war with Iran? Those two false flag limpet mine attacks were setup, the US flew a drone into Iranian airspace. Remember the threat of attacking Venezuela?

If we begin a new war under Trump’s presidency, I’ll change my tune. My bet though, Caitlin is that you won’t. Not because you’re intellectual deficient or something, it’s just that I know it’s difficult to believe that a Republican is an actual peace candidate especially considering the scum that is in his administration to keep the Neocons and Israelis happy..

Richard Wicks/September 6, 2019

I’m pointing out, the reality, that we have not begun a new war with our current president, we had begun TWO under Bush, and one with Obama, and both were started over complete lies.

Trump was baited 3 times into a war with Iran. Two false flag limpet mine attacks on oil tankers, and letting a drone go into Iranian airspace to be shot down. He didn’t bite, did he?

You think we’d be in the same situation with the Butcher of Libya in the Oval Office? That same “person” that voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq and was in the minority of the Democratic party when she did this as a JUNIOR senator? We’d be bombing Iran and Venzeula by now, and still would be bombing Syria.

There’s between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis dead because of George W. Bush. No numbers are even guessed at with Afghanistan, but opium production has gone from 5% of the world’s supply to 85% all under US military occupation and COINCIDENTALLY there’s an opioid epidemic problem in the United States. I’m sure it’s really a coincidence..

When Obama spent 8 years bombing 7 nations he created the refugee crisis you see in Europe. Where were the protests when that happened? But when Trump placed a TEMPORARY refugee ban on 5 of those nations, people poured out to protest.

I’m suggesting you should pay more attention to results, and not rhetoric. There’s operating slavery markets in Libya today.

But at least the FALSE FLAG gassings in Syria have stopped. Have you noticed that?

Maybe you just don’t realize how evil and corrupt the US government is. 3 years ago, there were warnings that Trump was the next Hitler and he was a fascist. You know why that happened? Because most people don’t know what fascism is. We were SOLIDLY in fascism since 2001.

I don’t think you appreciate the position Trump is in, and also think you mistakenly think he just stumbled into the position. Let me give you a taste of what he is up against:

We KNOW that the 9/11 was a false flag. This isn’t speculation anymore, we KNOW. Now consider all the FUCKERS in our mafia, our media, and our intelligence agencies that have COVERED THAT UP for 18 years.

Now what important points do you think you’ve made I should address?

Why do you think the 25th Amendment was brought up the SECOND Trump was elected, and there were calls to impeach? And “to resist” – to resist what? Trump can’t publicly and radically do something “crazy” like change course, point out that the limpet mines in Iran were false flags, indicate that the reason Syria was under attack by the US was mostly for the benefit of Genie Energy, or explain the US intelligence agencies are importing opium from Afghanistan, or that 9/11 was a false flag perpetrated by our our intelligence agencies. He can’t even say the real reason the US is in Venezuela is because the Koch brothers stand to benefit heavily. He can’t tell the programmed, propagandized, victims that are called “Americans” the truth – that would be “crazy”.

You’re probably naive enough to think that the government is monolithic as well. What you are witnessing right now, is a civil war within our own government. The establishment still runs most everything, not Trump. Why do you think they spent 2 1/2 years on this Russian Collusion BULLSHIT? It doesn’t have to be credible, it just has to waste time and that’s what it did.

I’m not kidding when I say our federal government is a mafia. It’s been in construction since George H. Bush – he’s from a crime family. Clinton worked with him as well, which you may not be aware, to import drugs during Iran/Contra – those weapons weren’t free. The last time we MIGHT have had an operating federal government was 1988. It’s been 28 years we’ve had STOOGES as our “president” run by the intelligence agencies as a meat puppet. Is Trump perfect? Oh no, but at least he’s not a meat puppet who did things like, increase Afghanistan’s opium production to 85% of the world’s supply.

Bet you didn’t know that Skull and Bones was founded on the opium trade.. Our “respectable leaders” are drug traffickers, rum runners, mafia bosses, weapons dealers… All great people… But you can whine and moan that Trump isn’t able to control them. We have to dismantle the entire infrastructure of the federal government, and that goes way deeper than just changing who we elect because who we elect don’t control anything. They are marketers to convince us that whatever they’ve been ordered to do, we accept as “the right thing to do!”.

It takes a LONG TIME to get people to understand just what is going on. It’s 100 times worse than you currently imagine.

Richard Wicks/September 6, 2019

That is the point *I* am making. Trump doesn’t decide who is “sanctioned”, he’s told, and he takes the blame.

Have you never sat down and thought “what reason would a multi-billionaire take the worst job on the planet for?”

Would you become president, if you were paid $10 million a year? I wouldn’t.

Do you think he needs more money and enjoys having his name dragged though the mud? JFK was murdered and his kids are all dead save his daughter.

I would also like to point out you’re using US propaganda sources for your source information, CBS for example. My generation made the internet so you can talk to anybody on the planet. You can talk directly to a Syrian, if you go through some effort.

Ask them what they think of the US today and compared to what it was 4 years ago?

Also suggest you use a VPN and take everything with a grain of salt, since you may be running into a propaganda program like Bana al-Abed.

Martin/August 11, 2019

i’ve been thinking: could it be that trump’s abundant use of sanctions could be a provocation to make the un and nations forbid these measures all together to stop bds (and national and peoples’ power to ‘not buy corporate output’)?

A/August 11, 2019

Anachronis/August 11, 2019

Until 9 August 2019, I respected Ms. Johnston’s journalism greatly, despite her occasional fact-mistakes (which, I deduced, were events of harmless, forgivable negligence). But, with her article “The Persistent Myth That Trump Opposes War” (to which this comment responds) she (not just her journalism) lost my respect. In “The Persistent Myth That Trump Opposes War,” Ms Johnstone asserts:

“This administration is currently working to extradite Julian Assange and lock him away for life because he exposed US war crimes. It has killed tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions in an attempt to effect regime change in the most oil-rich nation on earth, and many times that number can easily die as a result of the new total economic embargo that Trump signed into law on Monday. It is advancing the longtime John Bolton agenda of regime change in Iran via starvation sanctions, CIA covert ops, and reckless military escalations.”

Trump’s Venezuela sanctions are reprehensible. In seizing a ship carrying food to Venezuela while the ship was traveling the Panama Canal, the Trump administration violated Panamanian sovereignty and at least two rules of international law and, arguably, committed a violation of international human rights rules. But in doing so, neither Trump nor his administration committed an act of war.

Like the Obama Administration, the Trump administration is abusing the U.S. Espionage Act to punish legitimate journalism that exposes the criminality of U.S. government conduct. Just so, the Trump administration Justice Department’s Assange-affecting actions are unlawful, unconstitutional, and reprehensible. But those actions are not acts of war. (Also, one may doubt whether Trump, himself, wants to prosecute Assange, whose journalism helped Trump win the Presidency.)

Like the Trump’s Venezuela sanctions, Trump’s Iran sanctions are at best stupid and at worst a violation of an international treaty that became part of U.S. law and also a reprehensible harm of the human rights of Iran’s population. But they are not acts of war.

The “CIA covert ops” Ms. Johnstone asserts are events of evil pseudo diplomacy and violations of Iran’s sovereignty,; but they are not acts of war.

The “reckless military escalations” Ms. Johnstone cites, are preventive defensive measures. They are stupid; and they could (but do not yet) involve violating Iran’s sovereignty. But they are not acts of war.

Ms. Johnstone mentions the Trump administration’s following the lead of the Bush and Obama administrations in selling military materiel to the Saudis — materiel the Saudis use in their possibly genocidal and surely international-law-violating Yemen war. The war-materiel sales are reprehensible; but they are not acts of war.

I shall not address others of Ms. Johnstone’s false assertions that seek to paint Trump a war monger or accuse Trump of painting himself falsely an opponent of war. The preceding crtiticims suffice to show her article reprehensibly fallacious.

Anachronis/August 11, 2019

Martin/August 11, 2019

you use the term ‘act of war’ a lot in your comment, but it’s not in caitlin’s text. your comment puts up a straw man. the title is not ‘trump is commiting acts of war’ but ‘The Persistent Myth That Trump Opposes War’. i suggest that you change your position back to respecting her journalism again as you did before or maybe you could address the ‘false assertions’ (the other one ‘accusing trump of painting himself falsely an opponent of war’ is again a straw man. it’s not trump that’s doing that).

Anachronis/August 11, 2019

You do not understand “war.” Ms. Johnstone’s piece addresses war. A war does not occur without an act of war. A war occurs if only an act of war occurs. But if no act of war occurs, a war is not present.

War is military violence: ARMED violence of a nation or state or insurrection-force.

An ARMED invasion is war, even if the invasion is very brief and is accomplished by An invading nation’s very small force or even if an invading nation’s ARMED personnel does not trespass upon another nation’s land but fires guns or cannon or missiles into another nation’s land. An ARMED invasion is violence even if no weapon is fired, if only the invading nation’s ARMED military force trespasses onto the invaded nation’s territory.

An “act of war” is one NATION’s act against another NATION if the act (a) occurs AS, OR IN, ARMED, NATION-AGAINST-NATION conflict or (b) is one nation’s act designed to provoke ARMED, NATION-AGAINST-NATION conflict with the object nation.

Ms. Johnstone tries, speciously, fallaciously, to equate the Trump administration’s harmful NON-act-of-war actions with war, despite the actions are neither (a) armed conflict acts or armed invasions nor (b) acts of war. If a Trump administration’s action is not even an act of war, it cannot be “war” or acts of making or waging “war.”

When the Trump administration seized the ship carrying food in the Panama Canal, the Trump administration did not send a U.S. armed force into Venezuela or drop a bomb on Venezuela or fire cannon or guns or a missile into Venezuela.

Nor did the Trump administration act to provoke Venezuela to wage war with the U.S. Rather, the Trump administration sought either (a) to cause Venezuela’s public or Venezuela’s military or an internal Venezuelan political force to overthrow the current Venezuelan government or (b) to cause the current Venezuelan government to capitulate politically or economically to U.S. politico-economic interests (especially U.S. petroleum interests). Such is neither “war” nor an “act of war.”

My comment did not involve a “straw man.” You do not understand “straw man.”

Martin/August 11, 2019

Anachronis/August 11, 2019

(1) Carl von Clausewitz theorized — and invented cute aphorisms concerning — the political/psychological aspects of war. But his political/psychological musings assume the existence of war or acts of war; hence, Clausewitz’s musings do not join issue with my deconstruction of Ms. Johnstone’s disgracefully specious/fallacious assertions concerning Trump’s reprehensible conduct that does not constitute or involve “war” or an act of war.

(2) NOT the late 18thCentury/early 19th century philosophizing of an individual soldier (Clausewitz), but post-WW2 international LAW and related LEGAL rules and LEGAL doctrines determine whether a government or its official wages or engages in war or commits an act of war. Post-WW2 international LAW and related LEGAL rules and LEGAL doctrines (E.G., the UN Charter and war-definition-pertinent UN resolutions and Security Council actions) render Ms. Johnstone’s assertions not only specious and reprehensibly fallacious but also risibly absurd.

(3) You do not understand “straw man” — just as you do not understand “war” or comprehend “act of war.” Or you misapply the concept “straw man” by using a “straw man” in trying to rebut my comment.

The link opens a well-annotated edition of Sun Tzu, “Art of War.” Note that Chapter 13 — The Use of Spies — assumes existence of war; for, it discusses using spies to cut the costs of a war being prosecuted. It does NOT suggest toppling a regime with covert subversion or propaganda or by fomenting insurrection — none of which is war or even an act of war.

As reported by Vox and by CBS News: Trump’s “top envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, confirmed that he was heading back to the region to try and push forward the negotiations for a peace deal with the Taliban.”

[ Speaking w/ @ImranKhanPTI yesterday, @POTUS reiterated to the world that there is no reasonable military solution to the war in Afghanistan, & that peace must be achieved through a political settlement. Pakistan committed to do all it can to achieve peace.https://t.co/TKx8lAuoyt — U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad (@US4AfghanPeace) July 23, 2019]

Trump can greatly help his reelection prospects by withdrawing some troops from Afghanistan and by exposing some dirt on the Deep State. He needn’t withdraw all troops to get credit and can lie about details. The Deep State has enough dirty laundry that it would be easy for Trump and the GOP to win by attacking it. For example, Trump could decide to tell the American people about who killed JFK. It’s convenient for Trump that the Deep State has dirt on him too. If you read right wing media, you’ll see that Trump is being hailed as a muckraker willing to stand up to the Deep State and to its liberal allies.

“Regarding the political feasibility of a reduced and focused presence in the Middle East, the article overlooks the fact that, despite their myriad policy differences, both President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump campaigned on reducing U.S. overseas commitments, particularly the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Obama arguably did not succeed in this regard, and Trump has not yet succeeded either, but their electoral success hardly reflects a groundswell of support among the American people for continually pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into endless wars with seemingly unachievable objectives. “

Khatika/August 10, 2019

I believe on a personal level that Trump is not a warmonger. However in the environment of DC he has made a deal with the militAry and their cabal to support them in exchange for their support. Otherwise he would get nothing done. Everything has a price.

James Sigrist/August 9, 2019

I miss Michel Belisle’s comments. He’s a good, gentle soul. Michel? Are you out there? I know that you’ve seen enough. I think we all have. Reading the comments on Caitlin’s site without your contributions is not quite the same. I hope you will come back. I look forward to your commentaries as much as Caitlin’s essays.

JRGJRG/August 9, 2019

Caitlin, wonderful observations, but most of all I first want to thank you for teaching me the new word, “Kayfabe.” KAYFABE! How perfect! I seldom have to look words up anymore, but I was educated. If there’s anyone here that glossed over that incisive bit of wordswomanship, I suggest you look it up. It is so appropriate and it sums up about everything we see in politics today. Here’s a clip that explains kayfabe:https://youtu.be/aGoA2VHFIac

JRGJRG/August 9, 2019

JRGJRG/August 9, 2019

Kayfabe on the debates is like Howard Beale, the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves from Network (1976). Remember this?https://youtu.be/3tgspsPFTXI The whole cast of characters in the debate is arranged to split the Democratic vote along different identity political lines.

JRGJRG/August 9, 2019

On the other hand, wouldn’t it be nice if the contest between Trump and Putin on TV really was just kayfabe and was meant only for the purposes of keeping the public busy and amused like a TV wrestling match? Then we could “stop worrying and learn to love the bomb” because we would know it was actually never really going to go off because that would break kayfabe once and for all. I’m afraid that’s not the case.

Like all U.S. presidents, Trump is just a puppet, a cog in the criminal machine that is the U.S. government. That criminal machine is not interested in peace. It only wants more power and control over the masses, which it often obtains via force, violence, and war. Deception is always used to make us believe the force, violence, and war is necessary. The ruling sociopaths run the world using these basic strategies. Anyone believing Trump is a peace president or working to thwart the criminal machine is among the totally deceived.

Dear Caitlin, Your reports are not truthful and your knowledge is very much flawed. I feel your reporting very haphazard and not well researched AT ALL! I have no idea WHERE in the alternative media you get your info from however its flawed and untruthful to say the least. You DO NOT HAVE the real facts and so called reportes/journalist like you give ALL the good guys that report truthfully a bad name. I am going to try and report you as one of the trolls that try to tarnish or cover up the REAL TRUTH! Get your info from real thruthers and work with them before you put out garbage! Ever heard of Tommy Williams or Operation Freedom with Dave Janda or the Q-team or Thruth and art TV or ect – get a grip on what’s really happening.

JRGJRG/August 9, 2019

Somewhere in your rant, MP, it is customary to identify the particular evidence or opinion that you feel is missing or erroneous but what is truly remarkable is that you wrote nine paragraphs of hate and vitriol without stating one specific fact that justifies your being “a very upset human being.” Apparently, a troll with no facts to show.

I wondered at one point if you were indulging in satire! But I could find no such clue.

Apparently, this is the limit of your ability to articulate. Perhaps you would like to try again to educate the rest of us about what it is you’re disputing, other than to recite some other right-wing source which you credulously believe to be the Oracle of Truth for all the rest of us to find.

And, who you gonna report Caitlin to? Are you kidding? Did you ever hear of the First Amendment? To the Ministry of Truth? Apparently not. Frightening evidence of the abject failure of our educational system. How old are you, exactly, boy?

No other better example than Steve Mnuchin. Ex-Soros employee, member of several groups mentioned above, and an attendee of Bohemian Groove.

Now watch as Donald implements Hillary’s policies on gun control. If Donald’s cousin, (Hillary) would have won, the same agenda would remain. But you can’t get the cultists to acknowledge this. Four D-chess you see?

cutthecord/August 9, 2019

“There are some things in the ‘Good’ column, like Trump’s…refusal to strike Iran for downing a US drone”

That’s a peculiar notion of “good”, since the only way the situation existed in the first place is the overwhelming Bad of the US military presence in the Mideast in the first place, and in particular the longstanding US aggression against Iran.

gpcus/August 9, 2019

“It would be great if Americans could put someone in charge of their military who actually opposes war. To believe that that has already happened is reckless and delusional.” OK. But isn’t it delusional and reckless the same to believe it can happen at all? It’s not going to happen, even Tulsi will be quickly either removed or realigned, if the system, in an unexpected hitch, would allow her to get there.

DDearborn/August 9, 2019

Hmmm

What would be really great is if we could elect a President that not only opposed war, but actually knows how and is willing to keep us out of them. Of course, that also means we need not just a President, but a Congress as well that refuses to get into bed with israel, let alone be married to israel like “our” President and Congress is today.

Scoffing at this are you? Just look at the voting record of the US Congress when it comes to anything that benefits israel in the 21st Century; the vote is almost always swift, with little or no debate and close to unanimous in israel’s favor every time. As for Trump, his idea of draining the swamp is to surround himself with dual citizen israelis. Israelis who naturally do everything in their power to ensure that Trump continues to put israel and its needs ahead of America and Americans. Don’t believe it? What major demand of Israel (other than attack Iran and literally start WWIII) has Trump denied NutenYahoo and his cabal of rabid, racist, war mongering fascists?

Every single POTUS is just ” a visible hood ornament ” for the owners and masters ” behind the scenes and the curtains that are actually running the United States Evil Empire “. Perhaps it would be better for the entire universe if our dysfunctional species just destroyed itself completely!

elkojohn/August 9, 2019

RIVED HEADLINE: – ‘ ‘ The Persistent Myth That the U.S. Empire Opposes War ‘ ‘ – It really doesn’t matter who the ruling elites put in the White House. As long as the U.S. empire exits, there will be perpetual war & military aggression against disobedient nations.

Martin/August 9, 2019

Robot/August 9, 2019

Former Sen. Mike Gravel, the Senator who read the Pentagon Papers into the Senate record to get them published back when Nixon was pursuing Espionage charges against Daniel Ellsberg, today announced his endorsement of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Robyn/August 9, 2019

Australians are, by and large, a complacent and ignorant lot. They think we will be OK, the Americans saved us in WWII and they’ll look after us now. Besides, we’ve earned US protection because we’re their Pacific Proxy and we do everything the President asks of us. And you won’t get a major party politician to say otherwise. Pathetic.

Robot/August 9, 2019

Even the “meetings with Kim Jong-un” were an attempt to bully him into the same sort of bad deal that Obama wanted. Yes, the summits provided a good photo-op. But then Pompous-A went in to demand complete denuclearization before Korea got anything it wanted. Bolton even mentioned the Libya model, which of course meant that Kim Jong-um was a dead man and his country would be invaded if he ever gave up his nukes. The second summit was just a photo-op where the only thing that really happened is that Trump tried to put a positive spin on the fact that Pompous-A had completely failed in his mission and Trump was getting a little bad publicity and Trump needed to end that. To show the overall level of success, North Korea is now launching missiles almost daily to express their displeasure. Apparently that’s their only means of trying to send a message, or at least the only way that might get through to Washington. ——————- Personally, I don’t believe for a minute that Trump refused to order the strike on Iran. I think Trump, Pompous-A and Bolton all wanted the strike, but the Pentagon told him no. The Pentagon did exactly the same thing to Bush. We’ve also heard a version where Trump tried to get Iran to agree to a meaningless Syria-style show strike, but Iran told America to go get stuffed. ——————- Trump’s style is to play the bully and to loudly bluster and yell a lot. The only way Trump gets any credit for not having a war in North Korea is for the fact that his ridiculous threats were never carried out. That of course is because they couldn’t be. Kim Jong-Um called Trump’s bluff, like pretty much everyone (outside of Europe and Australia) is doing these days. Trump lost the pot when Kim called him, and then moved on to being a bully towards other nations to try to distract everyone. But a blustering bully and an anti-war President are not the same thing. WW2 began in Europe when that era’s blustering bully tried one bluff too many.

mike k/August 9, 2019

mike k/August 9, 2019

Trying to convince the brainwashed of the obvious often seems a waste of time. Bu there are a few of our fellow citizens that are just a bit open to counter-narratives to the MSM mythology. These folks should be our main target.

Some of my friends agree and some disagree with this. Americans agree more, or not at all. “Furriners” think a bit better of Trump, in general. I don’t think Trump is “anti-war”. He’s said as much. “Doesn’t matter one way or the other.” I think Trump does see the end of the global empire, sees who is running the global empire, and that he would like to step it down to something America can manage after the next big reset. I think he would like the empire to pay America or break even, rather than be a gross loss. Everybody may disagree with me for various different reasons. I think Trump is a “rationalist” in the traditional sense, but unusually hard to read, because he has so many “tells” in essentially every direction, all the time.http://www.johndayblog.com/2019/08/world-starvation-war.html

It’s terribly tempting to want to feed the hungry proletariat the meal they desire. But each of those comics you mention have all made me laugh hard. Much of late night comedy now sadly is remarkably interchangeable. Don’t despair https://t.co/MePoHPzcJq

@RobSchneider This is exactly why I reserve a special hatred for comedians like Bill Maher, Steve Colbert, Samantha Bee and Trevor Noah who sell their talent to the churning out of propaganda for establishment power structures. https://t.co/vTVPNe3kU8

Excerpt from "Mainstream 'Centrists' Pose The Greatest Ideological Threat To Us All":

People like Ashton Kutcher imagine that the so-called “center” is called that because it sits smack dab in the middle of the ideological spectrum between communism and fascism, right in that moderate sweet spot that respects capitalism and private ownership without flying off the deep end into Nazi-like tyranny. In reality, the status quo exists entirely outside any left-right paradigm. It’s neither “left” nor “right” to give total control of the western world to an alliance of plutocrats and opaque government agencies who seek to expand their power and wealth by destroying our ecosystem, waging endless wars, and gradually shoring up more and more control of their citizenry via internet censorship, surveillance and police militarization. It’s just crazy.

I’m picking on Ashton not because he occupies some special place in all this, but because he doesn’t. He’s just an illustration of how blind people have become to the real threat that’s right in front of them, and how normalized insanity has become.

People who identify as “left” see the ruling power establishment as right-wing, people who identify as “right” see the ruling power establishment as left-wing, and people who identify as “center” see themselves as moderates whose normal, healthy way of life is under threat by the “far right” and “far left”. But really all that’s happening is a few assholes fucking over everyone else, which is no more “left” or “right” than a terrorist attack. The left versus right argument doesn’t even make sense until this far more pressing issue has been resolved. A Bernie supporter and a Trump supporter are arguing about left versus right while trapped in a room with a tiger who’s eating them both alive.